Postmodernism

James K. A. Smith's "Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?"

2009-04-07T05:47:00.000-07:00

hey guys, here's a few questions to mull over before my presentation on wednesday. If you don't get a chance to read the whole book, it would be helpful even if you just read the last chapter. we will be talking about the implications of postmodernism on the church and on christianity while keeping Smith's idea of 'Radical Orthodoxy' as the main focus.

What do you think about Smith’s proposition that Christianity is grounded in faith and not in objective truth? He says: “We can’t know that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. The best we can do is believe” (119). What implications does this have on any sort of evangelizing to ‘non-Christians’? Or, put in less Christian terms, can we share Christianity with others if this is the case?
How do we introduce Christianity to newcomers if we cannot objectively prove Christianity’s truth?
Does the Starbucks example adequately deal with this question? (78-79)
(Did he really use Starbucks as the example of what the postmodern church should look like??)

Has modernism been as detrimental to Christianity as Smith suggests?

Can we take Smith’s idea of Radical Orthodoxy and apply it to denominations other than Catholicism?

In what ways, good or bad, do you think that postmodernism has affected the church/Christianity?

Bruce Cockburn: The Christian Postmodern Artist?

2009-04-06T11:47:00.000-07:00

(but he sears too much)

I am going to be speaking on Bruce Cockburn. If you have not heard him or not in depth I suggest that you listen to these three songs: Rocket Launcher, Call it Democracy and Candy Man’s Gone. or go here and watch 80s music videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4kBv3twle4

My presentation will breifly explain some important ideas from Brian Walsh. Then I will tell you why I think Brian Walsh’s thoughts may not helpful or applicable. then I will tell you a funny story.

Here is the lyrics to Candy’s Mans Gone which talks about the end of modernity:

Sun climbs toward high noon, Glints metallic off the bowl of the spoon Sliding through the air toward parted lips Watch the expression when the straight taste hits Face crumples, tongue's quickly withdrawn  I hate to tell you but the candy man's gone  

Oh sweet fantasia of the safe home Where nobody has to scrape for honey at the bottom of the comb Where every actor understands the scene And nobody ever means to be mean Catch it in a dream, catch it in a song Seek it on the street, you find the candy man's gone  I hate to tell you but the candy man's gone

  In the bar, in the senate, in the alley, in the study  Pimping dreams of riches for everybody "Something for nothing, new lamps for old And the streets will be platinum, never mind gold" Well, hey, pass it on  Misplaced your faith and the candy man's gone I hate to tell you but the candy man's gone

Some questions which arise in studying Cockburn. How do we avoid using Cockburn as the spokesman for activism and postmodern thought? what are the dangers implicit in such action?
How do we avoid a cult of celebrity around certain artists we tend to agree with?
How can we see Cockburn’s art as good in and of itself without aligning it to any given cause? In other words can Cockburn be meaningful and useful if we avoid the Brian Walsh’s allegiance to postmodern christianity for example?

Coupland -Dana and Zach

2009-03-30T19:28:00.000-07:00

COUPLAND!
also check the blog and post your papers as comments...

Zach and Dana are joining forces to explore the many and multivalent themes of Douglas Coupland’s novel ‘Life After God’.
Here are just a few questions to get you started—also, by MA’s request bring to class two specific quotes or sections that you want to discuss.

Recall Andy Warhol and Popism which saw the integration of art and advertising, which exploited the vehicle of mass-culture for the creation and selling of art. Consider this novel as the integration of Pop culture and literature. Brand names and other such icons of contemporary culture appear numerous times throughout the novel occur. What are the similarities between popism (or avant pop) and Coupland’s literature? Where do the two diverge?

Andrew Tate defines ‘Me-ism’ as “ a search by an individual, in the absence of training in traditional religious tenets, to formulate a personally tailored religion by [him]self. Most frequently a mishmash of reincarnation, personal dialogue with a nebulously defined god figure, naturalism, and karmic eye-for-eye attitudes”

This is one aspect of postmodern spirituality/religion that Coupland’s stories and characters deal with. What are the benefits/difficulties with such an approach? What are the connections between this type of religion and consumerism? Is this approach ultimately isolating or does it promote community?
What statement(s) is this book making about a greater narrative and the details of such? What is the real importance of Coupland’s choice ending.

In all of this consider and ponder on themes of disillusionment, consumerism, the middle-class and their behaviours and views of themselves and others, community, nature-disconnect, isolation, etc… bring some more themes to the table.

A few more questions:
Do you think we are raised without religion? (as Coupland would say "You are the first generation raised without religion). Try here to think of yourself as one in your culture (one of the crowd).

Coupland says that this Warhol quote is "absolutely true"-- “once you saw the world as pop you could never look at it the same way.” What does this mean for Life After God?

I challenge you to ponder the ending as the inevitable result of the Life After God narrative.

Of course, we have much love for you all.

now for a word from our sponsors...

2009-03-24T08:58:00.001-07:00

Here's a plan to keep this blog a little more organized:
Post your comments under the appropriate headings (ie/ if you wrote a paper about The Babysitter, post it as a comment to Sam's questions, etc).

The Loss of Reality in "The Babysitter"

2009-03-24T08:30:00.000-07:00

Hello Everyone,
I hope you guys are still in your pomo mindset from yesterdays class as I continue on with postmodern literature and more specifically short stories and metafiction! I know, I know the excitement is almost unbearable but just stop dancing and read my few thought provoking questions.

What Robert Coover is doing in "The Babysitter" is utilizing metafiction, essentially fiction about or on fiction, which often brings to question the ideas of reality. While some metafictions are very obvious about this fact, even going as far as to pause the story as the author explains his thought processes or where he thinks the story is progressing, Coover's use of metafiction revolves around him providing the reader with all the essential elements of fictional literature (a plot, characters, setting) but leaving the rest of the process to the reader. This is what makes organizing "The Babysitter" into one coherent story or plot an impossible task. By doing this, Coover is questioning the very basis of reality, something that the reader has little or no grasp of throughout the story, and basically leaves the interpretation and understanding entirely with the reader. Quite similar to other forms of art and architecture that we have discussed thus far.

So, a few questions to perculate thoughts:

How many different storylines or scenarios did you discover while reading "The Babysitter"?

It is obvious, judging by the last two paragraphs, that some of these scenarious are self-contradictory. Do you have a prefered resolution? Do you find one more interesting?

What is Coover saying about reality given the numerous narratives and plotlines?

Does metafiction mean the ultimate death of the author in the sense that Coover simply provided the reader with a bunch of paragraphs and then let them decide a meaning?

I hope this was, unlike "The Babysitter", somewhat coherent and I will leave you all with a quote:

"Coover's tale is like a set of Chinese boxes; one narrative thread leads to one narrative universe, which opens upon another narrative thread, which leads to another narrative universe, and another, ad infinitum. The overlapping contexts of all these universes make Coover's unfolding, ever-evolving story dense and rich in its possibilities."

Ursula Le Guin

2009-03-24T05:18:00.000-07:00

Hey Folks,

READ THE STORY BEFORE READING THIS GUIDELINE!

This week, I'll be presenting on Ursula Le Guin's short story, "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas". This story will coo in your ear, and then slap you in the face while simultaneously kneeing you in the groin. And as you're moaning in the fetal position on the floor, the story will turn for a moment before walking away and blow you a kiss. Throughout this violently tumultuous experience, be thinking about whether Le Guin's story is an embodiment of the question at hand or if she states her opinion.

I'm sending out these questions with the understanding that they're haunting. I'm sorry. They've been haunting me too and I just want to share the anguish.

1. Is perfection for the many worth the suffering of the few? How about perfection for the many and suffering for the one? How about perfection for half and suffering for half? (Why does the weight of the majority make a difference? Does your answer change if "perfection" is replaced with "basic comfort"?)

2. Think about the ways in which the utopian elements of Omelas shed light on the dystopian elements of reality.

3. Who are the "wretched ones" that make our Omelas possible?

I wish we were so lucky so as to be spared the chains of utopia. Don't worry, though. We'll spend time with that kiss that's blown to us at the end. We'll revel in it, in fact.

Best love,

Zoe

Borges and "The Garden of Forking Paths"

2009-03-23T17:06:00.000-07:00

If you don't have the Norton anthology, fret not dear friend! You can read the story online here: http://courses.essex.ac.uk/lt/lt204/forking_paths.htm

A few questions to consider:

1) The first paragraph refers to an actual historical account of WWI by Liddell Hart (published in 1930, 11 years before Borges wrote "Forking Paths") and an actual historical event in the War. Dr. Yu Tsun, however, is a fictional character. Why does Borges include this bit?

2) Remember, this is written like a mystery story, but is postmodern in it's philosophical implications regarding time and reality. Can you take the 16 characteristics we talked about in Hannah's presentation on music, and apply (at least some of) them to Borges' story? (Follow the link on her blog post to see the 16 things.)

3) Try to make connections with Vonnegut (especially in regard to time), Vanilla Sky, Barthes' Death of the Author, the other short stories from this week, and everything else you can think of. How do the ideas Borges presents contradict or strengthen the ideas we've already formed/discussed about time and reality?

Bonus question: Borges was part of the surrealist literature movement in Argentina. We haven't really talked about surrealist lit. but from our study of surrealism (artists like Dali, Magritte and Man Ray) in Europe, can you identify aspects of "Forking Paths" that might classify the literary genre?

Metafiction and the Death of the Author in Barth's "Lost in the Funhouse"

2009-03-23T16:58:00.001-07:00

So, because we have so many presentations this Wednesday, I'm going to keep this part short.
I, too, will be talking about Barthes' "Death of the Author", and metafiction (self-referentialism, talking about fiction in fiction, etc), but (hopefully) in a different way...

A few things you should think about before or after reading the story:
1) Is Barth emphasizing the death of the author by explicitly writing himself into his own story? If he isn't explicitly a part of his story, would we lose the author altogether? We, as the readers, are constantly reminded of how fully in control of the story and plot the author is. Does this, in turn, imply that there is no meaning in the text past what Barth points out?
2) Is there a purpose to the story itself or is Barth just playing with the reader?
3) Can we call this the 'death of the reader'?

These are some preliminary thoughts/questions. Barth seems to be both mocking and using postmodern self-referentialism to emphasize his point.

A quote from the story to leave you with. To emphasize the teasing of the author:
“For all a person knows the first time through, the end could be just around any corner; perhaps, not impossibly it’s been within reach any number of times. On the other hand he may be scarcely past the start, with everything yet to get through, an intolerable idea.” (92)

I love you all,
(and I hope this helps)
Mel

Position Paper #6: The Nature of Reality- the Reality of Nature.

2009-03-18T10:19:00.000-07:00

Directed by Cameron Crowe, the 2001 hit Vanilla Sky is a sharply detailed film that plays on a number of post-modern themes, one largely being the essence of reality. This film is very intentional. From the details of the furniture that surround the protagonist, David Aames, in his apartment: the music, the dialogue, the characters, the timing of different shots, and the Monet painting - nothing is left amiss.
Mimicking the present day world preoccupied with comfort, leisure and attainment of dreams, the end of the movie poses the protagonist with an ultimate question: Given the choice, would you choose a) to live in a perpetual dream state – living as happily and comfortable as you ever dreamed, or b) to live in the world of “reality” where you taste the bitter as well as the sweet that come with living in a world that cannot be controlled? David chooses the opposite choice of the post-modern response and chooses reality. However, the viewer is still plagued by this question of what is the value of reality, if any?
There are a number of scenes in the film that stood out as characteristic of post-modern. One example is at the very beginning of the film when David Aames is seen driving down the road in New York City, heading towards Time Square. Realizing there is not a human being around (the strangest thing that could happen in the largest city of the world) David gets out of his car and starts running through Time Square surrounded by the activity of motion picture billboards and advertisements – the essence of pop culture. Personally, in light of all that we have been talking about in regards to the promotion of pop culture through the advertisement business, I find myself overwhelmed and disheartened at the power of the industry. However, in an interview Cameron Crowe presents another perspective and explains that this scene is significant because it’s also a celebration of all that contributes to who we have become as people. What is interesting to consider in this scene is how irrelevant advertisements are without the people. In an empty city, these billboards mean nothing without people to be manipulated by them, but people still have meaning without billboards or advertisements. Thinking back to the theme of reality, I think this scene is showing how advertisements and pop culture work to enhance our sense of reality, but are deep failures because they feed illusions to people of what is “real”. Nature is real, but the past few generations have been so manipulated by the industrialized, capitalist culture that having a true sense of reality also seems like an illusion.
A second feature that was included in many scenes was where David Aames woke up to his alarm clock that had a voice repeating “open your eyes”. This seems to run parallel with the idea of reality, in the midst of opening one’s eyes to see, what is it that you see? What is reality? What can you be certain is true? In relationship to the post-modern world, postmodern’s might say that “reality” is an illusion because our sense of reality is always changing. This can be applied to the different scenes when David wakes up to the alarm saying “open your eyes” because every time he did so, his sense of reality was changing but could never seem to be trusted.
Finally, the scene where David is walking through the night club and wears the artificial face mask on the back of his head. This moment stood out as a symbolic one showing a two-faced man. The mask is the one that is accepted and the one that people feel more comfortable seeing, the true face however, is also exposed and is revealing the scars of David’s deformity as a result of the accident. The viewer can sense how uncomfortable David’s friends are with seeing him without his mask on, but what does this say about our relationships when we expose the real side of who we are in everyday life. This scene is playing on our present day reality, if reality is a real thing. This scene also exposes the individualistic side of modernism where everyone lives for their own good. The night club is a perfect symbol for our individualistic culture. It is a place, where a bunch of individual people come to fulfill their individual needs and they listen to the music that is so loud, it allows people to walk around and maintain their sense of individualism which can be permeated with relationship and conversation only if individual persons allow it.
In response to Vanilla Sky one blogger writes,
the theme is that images and ideas buried in our subconscious alter our perception of reality, that when we repress emotions into the subconscious, they are painted by desire, then expressed in dreams. Our conscious then becomes a muddled world of dreams and what we make of them, reality unable to be perceived until we understand how our subconscious has painted what we see in the waking world.

This point comes across at the end of the film when David makes his choice to accept the bitter with the sweet and chooses to live in reality – an ending that derails from that which is post-modern. Nonetheless, during his fall from the skyscraper a series of images that were implanted in his subconscious reveal the scenes from his life that were embedded into his perception of what life is suppose to look like, according to what he believed to be reality.
Personally, this leaves me grappling with the question of what is reality, because I feel guilty as charged to also have submerged in my consciousness images, scenes, ideas of what reality is – of what love is suppose to look like, friendship, success and greatness. The closest to reality I think I can come to is the natural world. At this point, what I continue to trust is that which I experience as I go for a walk and witness nature. Separating myself from the world of advertisements, television, magazines, department stores, books, music, videos, and work. This seems the most real right now.

Vonnegut

2009-03-17T14:32:00.001-07:00

i'm posting this for Zoe so that i can put my paper up as a comment:

Dear Earthlings,

I hope you are enjoying diving into the comically cosmic realm of Vonnegut’s literature. I’m wary of giving too structured of a guideline and doing a disservice to the humble-jumble masterpiece you are about to encounter (I would hate to kill the mood. So it goes. Or, worse, come across as a “bitchy flibbertigibbet”). I will, however, give you a few points to ponder.

1. Pay attention to the repeated phrases, events, and so on. What do these literary devices tell the reader about Vonnegut’s view of humanity? Along a similar vein, does Vonnegut’s view of humanity inform his view of war?
2. Is the Tralfamadorian perspective of death optimistic? Does it have a lesson to teach the Earthling reader about the inevitability of death? OR, does this perspective taint the "nice moments" of life since they are always held in tension with the immanence of death?
3. We’ve discussed other authors and artists who attempted to immortalize themselves through their work. In contrast, is Vonnegut embracing his mortality? OR, are there elements of this story that immortalize him as an author/an individual?

I’m not nervous to give this presentation since I have already presented it in the future and will continue to present it and so on to infinity.
(Might as well accept this invitation to talk nerdy, right?)
Best love,
Zoe

Postmodern Music

2009-03-16T19:59:00.000-07:00

I'm presenting on postmodern music and looking primarily at Jonathan D. Kramer's article “The Nature and Origins of Musical Postmodernism” (you can check it out here: http://books.google.com/books?id=hqiSnCkVU4cC&pg=PA8&dq=Postmodern+Music/Postmodern+Thought&ei=WQC8Se6VCpjAzQTkgP3JAQ#PPA13,M1).

here are some thoughts/questions to ponder:

How would you define postmodern music? Think of an example of what you would consider as postmodern music. Why?

In keeping with the discussion from last week about postmodernism and film, can a piece of music be exclusively postmodern? Can postmodernism be a specific genre of music?

Consider Barthe’s “Death of the Author”, does this apply to music composition as well? If so, where is the place for the songwriter? Can a songwriter or composer take ownership of their song? Does it make a difference to know who wrote a particular song?

Jonathan Kramer says that a characteristic of postmodern music is that “includes quotations of or references to music of many traditions and cultures” and that it appeals to and embraces the past. If postmodern music is appealing to the past and adopting musical techniques from other musical time periods, then can it be unique and creative?

This idea is similar to “pastiche,” which is a work composed from elements borrowed either from various other composers/songwriters or from a particular earlier composer/songwriter. We will be delving into the song “All You Need is Love” by the Beatles in class. If you have time, listen to the song and see if you can pick out characteristics of pastiche or postmodern music (based on the above quote) in it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzJ2NKp23WU

happy listening.

ahem. and now for a tardy review of postmodern film:

2009-03-14T14:17:00.000-07:00

I want to look a little more closely at this question that we have been asking ourselves lately; is postmodernism a category, or a characteristic? I first asked the question in reference to photography, and watching Vanilla Sky has brought it up again. First, is there such a thing as postmodern film, and if so, does Vanilla Sky fit into that category. There are obviously other options, but let’s start with those.
Let me first say that i think postmodernism can be a little bit like communism. It works on paper, but it tends to get watered down or distorted in real life. People screw it up. What I mean by that is, no matter how appealing it might be for truth to be socially created or values to be relative to the individual, we tend to expect others to recognize certain values; we think that people who see nothing wrong with rape or killing are sadistic. These are cultural implications of postmodernism, but what about art? I think that this inability to completely give ourselves over to postmodern theory applies in art as it does in other areas. For example, no matter how hard we try, we seem to be unable to ‘kill’ the author. Isn’t it true that we continue in the modern tradition of studying an author to give us context for her novel? (student presentations would suggest that this is true)
If this is true-- and I believe that it is-- then we cannot talk about a postmodern category in the purest sense, because it can never be actualized. It is still possible that we could talk about postmodernism as a category, just not as a pure category. Maybe that makes sense, perhaps this is true of other art forms as well. Can you have a purely cubist painting?
The problem is that in my experience, even the most postmodern film is equally well labeled as something else. Vanilla Sky comes in a long line of romantic dramas (perhaps not the best category, but you get the picture). The matrix (another film that we talked about being postmodern) is an action/thriller. Isn’t it possible that these films, rather than being categorically postmodern (which is problematic to begin with due to the difficulty we have describing postmodernism) are simply examples of dramas and thrillers which have postmodern characteristics?
My second reason for rejecting postmodernism as a category is, as I mentioned parenthetically, that postmodernism rejects being categorized. We saw that in Lyotard. The moment we are ready to grasp it, it becomes something different, no longer postmodern. It seems as though any film that was postmodern enough to stay in such an intangible category would be incapable of being widely enjoyed. Perhaps fine art could accomplish this, but probably never popular media.

Taking the Leap: A Conscious Decision to Live a Real Life (and post the first paper)

2009-03-14T08:52:00.000-07:00

Well, I had planned to email my paper in because I don't like other people reading my stuff, but then I realized that it appears as if everybody else had the same idea in mind; so I decided to take the leap. I'm sorry that this has to be the first paper posted, but hopefully it paves the way for bigger and better things to come. Let's post, people!

Before his accident, David Aames was living the dream. He owned a big company, a beautiful apartment, a Ferrari, had a lot of money, and could practically get away with whatever he wanted; he lived the life that most could only dream of. However, once he got in the accident, his life changed completely and most of what he had going for him had evaded his grasp. After the accident, David desperately wanted to get his old life back, but this was not possible with the state he was in; the only way that he thought he could regain what he had lost was to enter the Lucid Dream and recreate his old life with his subconscious. Yet, once he entered the Lucid Dream, in which his subconscious was in control, the only ‘dream he was livin’ was a nightmare. In dreaming, David could not create the waking dream that was his life before the accident.

Through the comparison of David’s life before and in the Lucid Dream, the movie Vanilla Sky highlights the difference between conscious and subconscious dreams. Conscious dreams are often our main motivators in life; having a dream gives us something to pursue and to live for. We can create any type of desired reality in our minds as we sit in our office cubicle or saunter down the street. However, when we consider what we actually dream at night, subconsciously, I would posit that most people would not desire to make these dreams a true reality. Dreams are often just the banter of the subconscious, taking pieces here and there of what we have seen, heard, or experienced in our lives. They are often haphazard and without order and not representative of what we hope to achieve in life. The sense of the word ‘dream,’ then, is quite different when placed in the context of waking or sleeping, conscious and subconscious, and the idea of a waking dream is much more appealing than the (mostly) uncontrollable dreams that we have when we are sleeping.

This distinction between conscious and subconscious dreaming is important because David’s experience in Vanilla Sky is essentially illustrating the fact that we cannot control our subconscious. David wanted to assume his old life after the accident and tried to do so by entering the Lucid Dream. However, he was unable to relive his old life in the Lucid Dream – even though he supposedly had full control over what happened in it – because he could not actually control his subconscious. David admits this while in the Lucid Dream: “My dreams are a cruel joke. They taunt me…I try to tell myself what to dream. I try to dream that I am flying. Something free. It never works...” As much as he tries, he cannot tell his mind what to think while he is dreaming. His subconscious takes control. This is evident in the situation with Sophia/Julie as we see his subconscious guilt about the way he treated Julie surface in the rape and murder of Sophia. We cannot fully live in our minds and in our dreams because our subconscious is a dangerous, alive, and uncontrollable thing. David was given what we might call the opportunity of a lifetime, the chance to create his own reality in the Lucid Dream. However, in the end, all he wanted was “to live a real life... I don't want to dream any longer.”

Vanilla Sky

2009-03-10T16:20:00.001-07:00

Watching this movie requires you to pay attention carefully to every detail.

a few things to contemplate during the movie:

Does reality really depend on the perception of the person experiencing it?

Is there a difference between simulated reality and 'true' and reality?

This link will take you to "vanilla sky" by Claude Monet. Is there any connection between the movie and the painting?
http://www.qualityart4u.com/Monet%20Vanilla%20Sky%202%20%20Ths%20scene%20at%20Argenteuil.jpg

2009-03-04T06:08:00.000-08:00

To provide a little context for this blog/project, perhaps it's time for a Word from the Prof. (and yes, I mean that ironically) And a contextual reminder? Anyone who wants to post or submit a paper this week, can write about anything we've read, watched or talked about so far.

To date, we've investigated postmodern philopshy, which is largely in the field of philosophy of language. And as we've discussed, this questions the underpinning sof western thought (logocentrism, if you will) apparently undermining the assumptions of modernism and opening up new possibilities--multiplicity of meanings, many points of view. So far throughout the course, we've seesawed back and forth between looking at this as good, and looking at this as bad. We are freed from rationalisitic modernism which says all things must be quantifiable, and we begin to hear and value "alternative" voices and values. Yet we also sometimes find ourselves floundering in a world of no centre, no consensus, no absolute.

Our most recent seminars and conversations have focussed on contemporary culture and its decidedly consumeristic trend and I think I can speak for all when I say there is little seesawing here--superficial, materialistic values; mass-produced commodities (many of which we certainly don't need), created at social and environmental expense; predatory marketing aimed at youth; a conflation of wants/needs/desires--we are unanimous in saying this is depressing.

With only a few weeks left in the course, it's time to try and formulate an active reponse to the course material. How do we live? I'll talk about this more later (in class and here). For now, here's the quotation from one of Thomas Merton's letters:

"The only thing to be regretted without qualification is for [us] to be perfectly adapted to totalitarian society. Then [we are] indeed beyond hope. Hence we should all be sick in some way. We should all feel near to despair in some sense because this semi-despair is the normal form taken by hope in a time like ours. Hope without any tangible evidence on which to rest. Hope in spite of the sickenss that fills us. Hope married to a firm refusal to accept any palliatives or anything that cheats hope by pretending to relieve apparent despair."

Feeling "near to despair" in this sense might just be the first step to constructive social change.

I love you all....

welcome to ssu postmodernism

2009-02-25T19:07:00.000-08:00

ok friends. here is how i hope things will work:
a presenter writes a post, in lieu of emailing the class. after that we, as a class, comment on each post rather than emailing our papers every week. after that, it's a free-for-all. hopefully we can add on to and improve our class discussion.
if you are a class-member, you are a part owner of this blog. take initiative, make changes you feel are necessary, you get it.